? KIEG Chlorella CS1 - Consistently positive effects on the animals were observed

Effects

Test Results

The CS1 Product has been applied to various types of livestock with significant results achieved for each.

Read More

Conclusion

The overreliance on grain-based animal feeds in industrial food animal production has negative consequences for animal health, the environment, and even human health. Considering the natural eating habits of livestock animals when formulating animal feeds would be beneficial to both animals and consumers, and will result in healthier herds and flocks, less reliance on antibiotics to control disease, as well as a lower chance of introducing certain pathogens into society via contaminated meat. The obvious solution appears to be open-space grazing and/or introduction of processed grass/hay into the existing grain-based animal feed mixes, however economic limitations prevail and thus constraining its application. It is here where KIEG’s CS1 Product offers a viable alternative.

Consistently positive effects on the animals were observed

The use of the CS1 Product in the daily diets of animals provides them with a source of natural living green (chlorophyll containing) feed material and allows farmers to solve the complex problem of increasing efficiency in many ways, such as:

  • Increase of live weight growth while improving on the feed conversion ratio
  • Reduction of the mortality rate among young animals
  • Increase of milk yields in cows
  • Increase of birth rate (across the board)
  • Increase in eggs laying and hatch rate in birds
  • Strengthening of the immune system resulting in an increased resistance to diseases such as tuberculosis, avitaminoses,
    pneumonia and illnesses of the legs and joints. It can also help cure ill animals who have not been fed with a diet of Chlorella
  • Improve meat palatability qualities
  • Lowered farm expenses – overall and specifically on veterinarian preparations

Most importantly, although classified as animal feed, the Product is not to be regarded as competing but rather as supplementary to existing animal feeds, as it is not designed to replace but rather enrich and boost the nutritional value of conventional animal feeds as well as facilitate its absorption by livestock resulting in improved feed conversion ratios and livestock product quality, while reducing mortality.

Effect On Productivity

Animal TypeProductIncreased Productivity %
CattleMeat20–40
Milk15–20
PigsMeat20–30
Litter10
PoultryMeat15–20
Laying Ability15–20
Hatch Rate25

Effect On Mortality

Young Farm AnimalsAdditioinal Gain %Preservation %
Calves25–4299
Piglets20–3099
Broilers15–2098

The poultry farm case

For the purpose of comparison, following are listed the typical supplements added to an average poultry farm in the Czech Republic: Vitamin C, Quinocol, Vaccine IB, Vitamin D3, Aminosol, Vitamin D4, Selen, Ibenin Forte, Pedacid, Bursiphar, Amoxygal, Linkofarm. Unofficially, antibiotics appear to be also widely applied. The average cost of such additives comes to around EUR 1300 per production cycle per hall of 20 000 broilers, as opposed to EUR 1600 cost of the CS1 Product as a substitute under the same terms and conditions. The table below provides simple comparison analysis on the application of the CS1 Product vs. conventional animal feed additives and medication


Poultry Revenue Effect (20,000 Heads):

TitleCS1 ProductConventional Supplements
Poultry (heads)20 00020 000
Cost of Additive1600 Euro1300 Euro
Mortality1–2 %5–6 %
Chickens for Sale19 70019 000
Average Weight in 35 days (kg)2.31.9
Weight for Sale (kg)45 31036 100
Revenue (at 1.063 Euro/kg)48 16538 374
Extra Revenue9491 Euro (20 %)